Obama’s first year in office was a busy one as he worked tirelessly to hinder the government’s ability to identify, locate, track, or make common sense connections between Islamists and terrorism.

In April of 2009, the DHS released a now-infamous report entitled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” and in which conservatives were labeled potential terrorists not because they are radical militants but because they are pro-life, support the Tenth Amendment, or are veterans.

It is no coincidence that this report echoes Tea Party-bashing left-wing blogs (check this one out comparing the Tea Party movement to the Weather Underground!) and demonizes the very Americans who will be protesting in the thousands on Wednesday for the nationwide Tax Day Tea Party.

From the report, p.2:

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

From the report. p. 3:

(U//LES) Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment tool. Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use. Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns and leverage them as drivers for recruitment. From the 2008 election timeframe to the present, rightwing extremists have capitalized on related racial and political prejudices in expanded propaganda campaigns, thereby reaching out to a wider audience of potential sympathizers.

Also in 2009, the Washington Times reports that a senior White House aide called for the elimination of the term “jihadist” because jihadis should be considered simply “extremists.” Two years later, the Washington Times continues, the White House “ordered a cleansing of training materials that Islamic groups deemed offensive.”

Now, a former DHS employee contends that he was ordered in 2009—the month before the failed attempt of the Christmas Day “underwear bomber“—to edit or delete hundreds of files on individuals connected to Islamic terrorism.

. . . [I]n early November 2009, I was ordered by my superiors at the Department of Homeland Security to delete or modify several hundred records of individuals tied to designated Islamist terror groups like Hamas from the important federal database, the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS). These types of records are the basis for any ability to “connect dots.” Every day, DHS Customs and Border Protection officers watch entering and exiting many individuals associated with known terrorist affiliations, then look for patterns. Enforcing a political scrubbing of records of Muslims greatly affected our ability to do that. Even worse, going forward, my colleagues and I were prohibited from entering pertinent information into the database.

A few weeks later, in my office at the Port of Atlanta, the television hummed with the inevitable Congressional hearings that follow any terrorist attack. While members of Congress grilled Obama administration officials, demanding why their subordinates were still failing to understand the intelligence they had gathered, I was being forced to delete and scrub the records. And I was well aware that, as a result, it was going to be vastly more difficult to “connect the dots” in the future—especially beforean attack occurs.

Haney goes on to explain that had this information not been removed or modified terror attacks after November 2009 might have been prevented.

As the number of successful and attempted Islamic terrorist attacks on America increased, the type of information that the Obama administration ordered removed from travel and national security databases was the kind of information that, if properly assessed, could have prevented subsequent domestic Islamist attacks like the ones committed by Faisal Shahzad (May 2010), Detroit “honor killing” perpetrator Rahim A. Alfetlawi (2011); Amine El Khalifi, who plotted to blow up the U.S. Capitol (2012); Dzhokhar or Tamerlan Tsarnaev who conducted the Boston Marathon bombing (2013); Oklahoma beheading suspect Alton Nolen (2014); or Muhammed Yusuf Abdulazeez, who opened fire on two military installations in Chattanooga, Tennessee (2015).

It is very plausible that one or more of the subsequent terror attacks on the homeland could have been prevented if more subject matter experts in the Department of Homeland Security had been allowed to do our jobs back in late 2009. It is demoralizing—and infuriating—that today, those elusive dots are even harder to find, and harder to connect, than they were during the winter of 2009.

Comments

This highlights that one of the problems with the left isn’t just that they are wrong but that they are so uncompromising. When ideology meets reality, the left chooses ideology every time. Heartache follows, every time.

Nothing like our gov giving a pass to terrorists while considering those who value the Constitution to be extremists. Amazing how the DC elites fear the citizen more than the foreign invader. Maybe those elites should have their salaries paid by the invaders, since we shouldn’t have to pay for our own demise because our own leaders are selling us out.

Apparently it’s safe to answer that question if someone is extremely inclined to carry around a copy of the U.S. Constitution (a habit that the U.S. government has listed as a red flag of menace). But if someone is extremely devoted to following the example of Muhammad and fulfilling the obligation of jihad in the path of Allah? Well, that’s just a cover for naked “extremism.”

Um, yes, impeachment is off the table, so long as there remain at least 34 senators who would vote to acquit him no matter what he did. At last count there were at least 55. Prosecutors don’t indict someone whom they don’t think they can convict, so why would you expect the House to do so? You know that he and his supporters would take his acquittal as vindication, and would wear the “unfair” impeachment as a badge of honor, just as Clinton did.

The House has the duty to impeach when the President’s conduct is deserving of the punishment. It is not the business of the House to protect the reputations of those in the Senate who might fail to do their duty to convict. Allow them to besmirch themselves before history. While protecting the Senators’ reputations, the Representatives besmirch their own. How the Senate may vote is not a proper concern of the House.

The House has no more duty to impeach where no conviction is possible than a prosecutor has a duty to indict where no conviction is possible. On the contrary, a prosecutor has a duty not to do so, so why do you think the House had a contrary duty?

And where did you get the idea that the reason not to impeach was to save the reputation of Democrat senators? The reason not to impeach is that not only is he guaranteed to be acquitted, but that acquittal would be seen by the public as a vindication. He would wear his impeachment as a badge of pride, just as Clinton did.

You can’t use the dead as a podium from which to espouse and anti-gun and anti-freedom agenda if there are no dead. Terrorist attacks prevented are media opportunities that aren’t realized. In order to never let a crisis go to waste, one must have crises.

While Obama claims to be a Christian, the evidence that he is really a Muslim (and a closet supporter of Iran and Islamic unrest) continue to mount. Of course, there is little question left that Obama’s overarching goal is to bring America down a peg or two or fortyseven. When Obama was campaigning and running with a platform where he was promising to fundamentally change America, far too many forgot the old adage “Change is inevitable, improvement is optional”.